5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Moscow.
6.  The media reported that on 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party (also referred to herein as “the Party”) occupied the reception area of the President’s Administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor.
7.  They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the President’s Administration Mr Surkov, and the President’s economic advisor Mr Illarionov. They waved placards with “Putin, resign!” («Путин, уйди!») written on them through the window and distributed leaflets with a printed address to the President that listed ten ways in which he had failed to uphold the Russian Constitution, and a call for his resignation.
8.  The intruders stayed in the office for an hour and a half until the police broke through the door. During the arrest, they did not offer any resistance to the authorities.
9.  According to the applicant, she was not a member of the National Bolsheviks Party. She was writing a master’s thesis in sociology on forms of activity of radical political movements in modern Russia. On 14 December 2004 one of the members of the National Bolsheviks Party told her about the direct action in the President’s Administration building planned for that day. She came to witness the protest action in order to collect information for her thesis. She did not take part in the occupation of the office, but merely watched the action, took notes and pictures.
10.  The indictment of the applicant states that at 12.30 p.m. on 14 December 2004 forty Party members effected an unauthorised entry into the reception area of the building used by the President of the Russian Federation’s Administration. Some of them pushed back the guards at the entrance and occupied room no. 14 on the ground floor. They locked themselves in, blocked the door with a heavy safe and let other members of their group enter through the window.
11.  Until the police arrived, the Party members, including the applicant, waved placards through the office window, threw out leaflets and chanted slogans calling for the President’s resignation. They stayed in the office for approximately one hour, destroyed office furniture and equipment and damaged the walls and the ceiling.
12.  On 14 December 2004 the applicant was arrested.
13.  On 16 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention on the grounds that she was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence, might abscond, reoffend, interfere with the witnesses or obstruct the investigation in some other way.
14.  On 22 December 2004 the applicant was charged with the attempted violent overthrow of the State (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and intentional destruction and degradation of others’ property in public places (Articles 167 § 2 and 214).
15.  On the same date the applicant asked to be released, referring to her clean criminal record, permanent residence in Moscow and permanent employment as a school teacher.
16.  On 24 December 2004 the investigator refused her request, referring to the gravity of the charges, the absence of a registered residence in Moscow and the risk that she might abscond.
17.  On 7 February 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2005, finding that the grounds on which the preventive measure had previously been imposed still persisted and there was no reason to vary the preventive measure.
18.  On 15 February 2005 the charges against the applicant were amended to that of a charge of participation in mass disorder, an offence under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
19.  On 8 April 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2005, referring to the gravity of the charge and the risk that she might abscond or interfere with the investigation.
20.  On 7 June 2005 the investigation was completed and thirty-nine people, including the applicant, were committed for trial.
21.  On 30 June 2005 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow held a preliminary hearing. It rejected the defendants’ requests to be released. It stated that it had taken into account the defendants’ characters, their young age, frail health, family situation and stable way of life. However, it found, referring to the gravity of the charges, that “the case file gives sufficient reasons to believe that, once released, the defendants would flee or interfere with the trial”. It therefore ordered that all defendants should remain in custody. On 17 August 2005 the Moscow City Court rejected appeals lodged by several of the applicant’s co-defendants.
22.  On 27 July 2005 the applicant and her co-defendants lodged applications for release. On 27 July 2005 the Tverskoy District Court rejected the applications, finding that their detention was lawful and justified. In particular, it noted that their detention had been extended by the court order of 30 June 2005 and, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, that order was valid for six months. On 5 October 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal.
23.  On 3 August 2005 the applicant and her co-defendants filed new applications for release. On 10 August 2005 the Tverskoy District Court rejected the applications. It held:
“The court takes into account the defence’s argument that an individual approach to each defendant’s situation is essential when deciding on a preventive measure.
Examining the grounds on which ... the court ordered and extended detention in respect of all the defendants without exception ... the court notes that these grounds still persist today. Therefore, having regard to the state of health, family situation, age, profession and character of all the defendants, and to the personal guarantees offered by certain private individuals and included in the case file, the court concludes that, if released, each of the applicants might abscond or obstruct justice in some other way...
In the court’s view, in these circumstances, having regard to the gravity of the charges, there are no grounds for varying or revoking the preventive measure in respect of any defendant...”
24.  On 2 November 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal.
25.  During the trial the applicant and her co-defendants stated that they had taken part in a peaceful protest against President Putin’s policies. According to the plan of the protest action agreed in advance, they were to go to the President’s Administration building to meet officials and hand over a petition that listed the President’s ten failures to comply with the Constitution and contained a call for his resignation. They were then to talk to journalists. On 14 December 2004 they had entered the reception area of the President’s Administration building as planned and had gone into a vacant office on the ground floor. The guards had followed them and had hit those who had lagged behind, had pushed them into the office and had shut the door behind them. The guards had threatened to use force against the protesters. Taking fright, the protesters had locked the office door and blocked it with a metal safe. They had chanted slogans and distributed leaflets through the windows, thereby expressing their opinions about important political issues. They denied destroying any furniture or offering resistance to the police. They claimed that the furniture had been destroyed by the police officers who had broken down the door and arrested them.
26.  The employees and the guards of the President’s Administration stated that on 14 December 2004 a group of about forty people had rushed into the President’s Administration’s reception area. They had pushed one of the guards aside, had scurried through the metal detectors and had jumped over tables and chairs. They had run into one of the offices, had locked the door and had started to chant political slogans. The police had arrived and ordered that the office be vacated. As the protesters had failed to comply, the police had broken down the door and arrested them. Some of the witnesses stated that the protesters had showed resistance to the police, in particular by preventing them from forcing open the door.
27.  The police officers who had participated in the arrest stated that before breaking the door down they had ordered that the premises be vacated. Having received no response, they had forced open the door and had arrested the protesters. They denied breaking any furniture in the office, stating that it had been damaged before their arrival.
28.  On 8 December 2005 the Tverskoy District Court found the applicant and her co-defendants guilty of participation in mass disorder. It found it established that the defendants had unlawfully entered the President’s Administration building without complying with the requisite entry formalities. In particular, they had bypassed identity and security checks and had pushed aside the guard who had attempted to stop them. They had then proceeded to one of the offices without being registered at the reception desk and without complying with the guards’ lawful demands to leave the premises. In view of their unlawful and aggressive behaviour, they could not argue that they had participated in a peaceful political action. The court also held as follows:
“[The defendants], acting in conspiracy, committed serious breaches of public safety and order by disregarding established norms of conduct and showing manifest disrespect for society... They effected an unauthorised entry into the reception area of the President of the Russian Federation’s Administration building and took over office no. 14 on the ground floor... They then blocked the door with a heavy metal safe and conducted an unauthorised meeting, during which they waved the National Bolsheviks Party flag and placards, threw anti-[Putin] leaflets out [of windows] and issued an unlawful ultimatum by calling for the President’s resignation, thereby destabilising the normal functioning of the President’s Administration and preventing its reception personnel from performing their service duties, namely ... reception of members of the public and examination of applications from citizens of the Russian Federation...
While performing the above disorderly acts [the defendants] ... destroyed and damaged property in the offices of the reception area of the President’s Administration building...”
29.  In respect of the applicant, the court noted that it was irrelevant whether she had joined the direct action for academic or other purposes. It had been established that she had directly participated in the mass disorder together with the others. Taking into account the fact that the defendants had voluntarily compensated the pecuniary damage in the amount of 74,707.08 Russian roubles (approximately 2,200 euros) caused by their actions and that the applicant had positive character references, the court sentenced her to three years’ imprisonment, but suspended the sentence and put her on three years’ probation. She was immediately released.
30.  In her appeal submissions the applicant complained, in particular, that she had been convicted, in breach of Article 10 of the Convention, for her participation in a peaceful assembly and for public expression of her opinions about important political issues.
31.  On 29 March 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
32.  From 16 December 2004 to 8 December 2005 the applicant was held in detention facility no. IZ-77/6 in Moscow.
33.  According to the applicant, her cell, which accommodated forty inmates, was overcrowded. The applicant suffered from psoriasis (a skin disease), chronic pyelonephritis (a kidney infection), chronic bronchitis and allergies. She did not receive medical treatment appropriate for her conditions.
34.  According to the Government, from 17 to 20 December 2004 the applicant was held in cell no. 307, which measured 132.1 sq. m and housed thirty-two inmates. From 20 December 2004 to 13 October 2005 and from 21 October to 8 December 2005 the applicant was held in cell no. 303, which measured 123.4 sq. m and housed twenty-seven to thirty inmates. From 13 to 21 October 2005 the applicant was held in cell no. 120, which measured 22.9 sq. m and housed two inmates. The applicant had a separate bunk at all times and was provided with bedding. In support of their position, the Government submitted certificates issued by the remand centre governor on 25 June 2009 and selected pages from the prison population register which recorded, for each day, the number of sleeping bunks and the number of inmates in each of the remand centre’s cells.
35.  Relying on certificates of the same date from the remand centre governor, the Government further submitted that all cells had been equipped with toilet facilities which were separated from the living area by a partition. There had been forced ventilation in the cells. The windows had been large and had not been blocked by shutters. The cells had had sufficient artificial light, which had been located so as not to disturb the inmates’ sleep. There had been no insects or rodents in the detention facility, as all the cells had been disinfected every month. Hot food had been served three times a day. Inmates had been able to take an hour-long daily walk in the exercise yards. They had been allowed to take a shower at least once a week.
36.  Relying on the applicant’s medical records, the Government submitted that the applicant had been regularly examined by specialist doctors and had been prescribed treatment when necessary.